Zagorath @ Zagorath @aussie.zone

Formerly /u/Zagorath on the alien site.

---

Read more

Posts

162

Comments

3,590

Joined

2 yr. ago

"scoring more goals" is not a skill. It's an outcome.

Your first argument against stopped clocks is utter nonsense. It's an argument from tradition. "We've always done it this way, so we should continue to do so" is bullshit reasoning. Defend it if you genuinely think it's better, but explain the actual reasons it's better. "Because we always have" is not a valid argument.

Stopped clocks would just lead to commercial breaks.

This is, in principle, a better argument. It presents itself as an actual disadvantage of the changed rule.

The problem is that it doesn't make any sense. It wouldn't change the game itself at all. The refs in soccer already stop their stopwatches. They just don't communicate this back to production. And then when the game is supposed to be over (because the clock reads "90"), the ref says "actually we're doing another 12 minutes". The amount of time played would be the same. The amount of time spent with the game stopped due to injuries, corners, etc. would be the same. The only difference is that the number you see on the screen would be the correct time, not made up nonsense.

Re 1, are you suggesting salary cap? Because I seriously find it insane that there's no salary cap on soccer. It makes the highest levels of the sport a complete joke. Only 5 teams have won the EPL since 2004, and if you go to 6 teams you get to 1995. That's not a healthy competitive environment.

IMO offside should use running photo finish rules. The forward most part of one player's torso needs to be behind the forward most part of the other player's torso. It's the most simple and intuitive method, IMO.

1 is such a huge problem with tennis, too. Absolutely ban the obnoxious grunts and yells.

yellow card for faking injuries…and for protesting with the referee.

Huge yes. I support the others saying it could even be a red card. The astonishingly bad sportsmanship from soccer players compared to other sports is a big reason it will never be taken seriously in countries like Australia. Diving is nothing short of cheating, and it's developed to such an extent that even children are frequently imitating the stars they see on TV and doing it in local club games.

In Australian football, which is played on cricket ovals ranging in size, but ~150 m long is a good ballpark figure, it takes very little talkback to the umpires (tbh, I've seen the rule overused in cases where it really didn't seem appropriate) before they'll march you 50 m. The opposing team gets not just a free kick, but a free kick from 50 metres closer to their offensive goal than where the original infringement took place.

Football: proper helmets

Assuming you mean gridiron football, I don't know exactly what you mean (how are the current helmets not "proper"?), but I would say exactly the opposite. The illusion of safety the helmet gives is part of what leads to concussions and CTE.

I'd do away with the helmet entirely. Go bald, or with a simple scrum cap, like in rugby union and rugby league. Techniques will have to adapt somewhat, but that's how all sports have to adapt to technological changes.

Soccer: don't use penalty shootouts to break ties. Penalities are a weird little minigame that don't really represent the most important skills of soccer, which are things like field position and control of the ball.

I'm open to suggestions on what should be done to break ties, but I like the idea of golden point where, if a goal is not scores after a certain amount of time, the number of players on the field starts gradually decreasing. So after 5 minutes of golden point, you drop to 10 vs 10, after 10 minutes it's 9 vs 9, down to a minimum of like 5 vs 5. Fewer players will tend to benefit the attacking team, making scoring more likely as it goes on.

Also soccer, as well as rugby union: just use the fucking clock. When the clock we see on the TV screen reaches 90 (or 80), that's it. Game over. Adjustments due to stoppage time etc. should be made at that time and transparent for everyone to see, by pausing the clock then and there, and resuming it when play resumes. Not added on at the end.

Edit: actually, it seems like rugby union might have already adopted this? I'm not too sure, because I'm a rugby league fan myself, which has always done it the right way (or at least always in my lifetime).

1. Wait, how does the back foot no ball cause players stress? I thought that rule mostly impacts spin bowling, but it's fast bowlers who are at greatest risk of knee injury.
2. Come on. You can't leave us hanging like that! At least name a few of the changes you'd suggest.
3. See above
4. Strongly agree. Batsmen are able to get an advantage by proceeding up the pitch early. Mankadding is required to even the playing field. Imagine in baseball if sneaking a base was allowed, but not pitchers getting you out for it!
5. Strong disagree. There's enough evolution of the ball over the course of a test as it is. We don't need artificial substances any more than triathletes need to start allowing steroids.
6. Strong disagree, with the exception that maybe they could make allowances for genuine injuries, if there's a safeguard preventing abuse of that. Creating a good team composition with a balance of the right kinds of players for the match is a core part of cricket. Allowing substitutions to cricket would be like if rugby started doing the gridiron thing of swapping out defensive and offensive teams.

As far as format rules go: I'd ban anything shorter than ODI. T20 and the IPL in particular are ruining cricket, with too many young players learning that style and becoming worse cricketers unable to adapt to the truest form of the game. The way the media went on and on about Sam Konstas because of his showboaty shitty T20 play style. Never mind that Webster, who debuted in the same series as an all-rounder to Konstas' specialist batsman averaged significantly more.

The only other rule that immediately comes to mind is one I've been told is being addressed. The ridiculous boundary catch rule. You shouldn't be allowed to jump from outside the boundary to keep the ball alive. Spectacular jumps from inside the boundary, throwing it back over the rope from outside before landing, either to another player or to yourself if you're able to get back in the field of play, are awesome. Hopping while continuously outside the field of play is not. Thankfully, I've heard they're fixing this soon, if they haven't already.

That sounds interesting. Do you recall the name?

It's not quite the same thing (particularly because of the motivation), but, uhh…I suggest you read about Abu Simbel, if you haven't already.

The front of it presumably is. But the back, that we're looking at, seems to be in shade.

What room? It looks like we're looking at the back of an object that's facing out into bright sunlight.

Well, you know what they say about curiosity and cats...

I actually really like the black black. And they didn't use red red (assuming that term is supposed to mean FF0000); it's quite a dull red, which I find works quite well. I prefer the high contrast mode though, with white white on black black, rather than slightly lower-contrast light grey text. I'm told it's apparently evidence-based to use the lower-contrast version, but it doesn't appeal to me.

Though I will say I intensely dislike the use of underline styling on "WRONG". Underline, on the web, has universally come to be a signal of a hyperlink, and should almost never be used otherwise. It also uses some much nicer colours for both unclicked and visited hyperlinks.

The most important difference between 1 and 2 is, IMO, the width limiter. You can actually read the source yourself, it's extremely simple hand-written HTML & (inline) CSS. max-width:650px; stops you needing to crane your head. It also has slightly lower contrast, which I'm told is supposedly better for the eyes according to some studies, but personally I don't really like as much, which is why "Best" is my favourite, since it has a little button to toggle between light mode and dark mode, or between lower and maximum contrast.

The original is terrible. It works ok on a phone, but on a wide computer screen it takes up the full width, which is terrible for readability.

If you don't like the colours, the "Best" lets you toggle between light mode and dark mode, and toggle between lower and higher contrast. (i.e., between black on white, dark grey on light grey, light grey on dark grey, or white on black)

See also: https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/

See also: http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/

And: https://thebestmotherfucking.website/

Both of which are vastly better.

"both sides"

One side is committing genocide.

The other side are an oppressed people fighting for their basic human rights.

Yes, there are civilian deaths on both sides, and that is lamentable. But to imply that it is anywhere near an equal conflict or that both sides are anywhere near equally to blame is completely ignorant of the facts.

I'm usually pretty good at shifting between the two ways to perceive optical illusions. But for this one I cannot see anything but white and gold. Even knowing that it's actually blue and black, I still see it as that.

am I part of the joke here??? It's clearly blue and black...

The objective fact is…it is a blue and black dress. Other photos of the same dress show that.

But I cannot, for the life of me, see how anyone can possibly get that from this photo. Sample the RGB values all you want and it clearly is not black in this photo. The exposure and white balance have messed around with it so much it is incomprehensible to me how anyone can see it as blue and black.

I didn't mean to call you out. I was genuinely curious what happened.

Birds? Am I missing something, or did you accidentally comment on the wrong thread?